Talk:Hill Giant (4e Race)

From D&D Wiki

Contents

Size: No 4e PC Race can be Large, it is highly unbalancing when it comes to things like Burst areas and Weapon Reach just to name a few.

Large: You should never include a penalty in racial traits, as well the shift in improvised weapon damage seems odd. This entire trait should be rethought and rewritten.

Crush Underfoot: This is a bad power. Being only able to effect Small creatures, and then doing way to much damage. This power could easily disrupt any encounter (particularly if its against a Solo who happens to be Small, no more little "boss" villians). It to needs to be rethought and rewritten.

Overall I think your trying to convert a monster (ie. Hill Giant) into a race that just won't work. Giants have too many qualities that unbalance them for PC use. Thank you for your time. -- Sepsis 16:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)

Comment from the Author:

In Your comment on Large I realize that I can't include, but this is basically "Being Large", as in, "Being Small" for gnomes and halflings. I also disagree with you on races not being Large, only medium or small. I agree they take up space, but I would probably allow it as a GM. And why would it have anything to do with burst?

I will rethink Crush Underfoot... trying to not make it overpowered. Any suggestions?

Absconder, the author

I'm just going to chime in here. Don't forget that being a giant makes it easier to flank. But I'll say, yes, reach and being large is a problem. Maybe giants shouldn't have their own racial powers? I don't know. But there may be people that would like to be a giant. --Axl 21:20, 29 January 2011 (MST)

A Large creature occupies 4 squares. A standard Close Burst 2 effects 25 squares, with a Large creature this increases to 64 squares...a bit overpowered at a basic level. The problems with Large PC Races is so numerous I could fill pages with the examples of how broken it is. And as said Large is explicitly against design standards for 4e Races (as well as using it to explain a penalty...penalties are another huge no no). So no matter how you fluff it, if it stays then this article needs the "Design Disclaimer".

As far as Crush Underfoot, well frankly its kinda dull, I would dump it, and create another power that does less damage and maybe causes a Condition. -- Sepsis 20:35, 25 May 2009 (MDT)

Your numbers are off. A standard close burst 2 effects 25 squares, but only 24 if you remove the square the person is taking up. A Large creature's close burst only takes up 36 squares, but when you remove the squares the creature takes up, it's 32. That's an 8 square difference, true, but the large size brings with it a ton of drawbacks with its wide area. Just because WOTC hasn't done something, doesn't mean it's WRONG. There's no reason to forbid penalties just because WOTC has. Dragon Child 20:53, 25 May 2009 (MDT)

Ah yes my math was off, so it only adds 16 squares...so its just really unbalanced, not horribly unbalanced. And as I said if the author wishes to include racial penalties and a Large size they can, but they are expressly forbidden in standard 4e design. Those are several of the things the rules were not designed to handle (like unlimited Heroic level flight). If they are used a DM will need to make further modifications as the game progresses to attempt to balance it (which will be hard given the rule set excludes those things and there will not be allowances for them). If these blatant balance issues are not brought into line then this article will need the "Design Disclaimer", it was created to warn potential users that a creation is not unbalanced out of ignorance (the design & developers guides are published every month), but out of choice. So yes it can be done, but the creation will remain unbalanced. This is 4e and when "WotC hasn't done something", you need to look into the reason...don't assume they missed something or are wrong. In this incidence, these issues are not only without precedence but they are specifically stated as being things never ever ever done with a race. Just notice the complete and total lack of large races, and the complete and total lack of racial penalties amongst the official races....this wasn't an oversight, and they have specifically said so. So in these particular areas the reason WotC hasn't done them is because they are "WRONG". -- Sepsis 06:29, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

You seem to have your math wrong with those squares... again. And again, you can't just say "It's wrong because WOTC says so". You talk about the reason, but don't actually give what it is. If the DM is willing to allow larger than usual corridors to always make room for a giant (or, indeed, be able to use smaller ones to punish them) that removes it as a problem. Not everything has to be for every game. WOTC hasn't done a lot of stuff - there was no +Con +Int race in the PHB, but that doesn't mean if you make one you're automatically wrong. It's a better question to ask WHY racial penalties don't exist (hint: it's because they're pretty much meaningless) or why large creatures don't exist (it's because they won't fit in all games, which is OK if the DM does want him for his game.) Dragon Child 14:29, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

You keep missing the point. It isn't a matter of just using it and saying "its balanced because DMs can deal with it", that dosen't balance something. The fact is Large sized PC races are expressly against 4e design, so nothing official will ever support that trait therefore if this article keeps the Large size it must use the "Design Disclaimer" (warning DMs they will need to make adjustments)...that is all. Nothing says for any reason this can't be done, it just can't claim to be balanced. As for the math I think you are quibbling over a small amount at best...don't nitpick to derail the point, it covers more area then is covered by *any* other race, the plain fact. And thats only one of the problems that is caused because the rules don't account for Large PCs. Again I have no problem with a race being Large (although that seems to be this races "one note"), it just needs to use the disclaimer if it intends to remain unbalanced. No one is saying the author is wrong, we just want to be sure the author understood something (ie. intentionally building a article that requires internal balancing to work in someones game), and that when this is done you either change it or add the Disclaimer. We are trying to maintain a library of well designed and balanced articles for users, not just a place were people can twist core rules and pretend that it all is ok (causing all content to be suspect). If something goes outside the design guidelines it needs to be noted. -- Sepsis 15:33, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

You keep missing my point. If something requires a "Design Disclaimer", stating that it's only good in certain campaigns, that does NOT mean it's unbalanced. It's only for certain campaigns. There's a huge, huge difference. And yes, it does cover more area, but that had both strengths and weaknesses that can be balanced together. You keep using the word unbalanced when it really, really doesn't apply. Is the race overly strong compared to other races? Is it overly weak? If not, it is not unbalanced. It doesn't require internal "balancing" - it's not like you need to specifically use this race's strength or weakness. It requires accommodation. That's a huge difference. I'm not saying large isn't unbalanced - I'm not coming down one way or the other. I'm just saying that your reasoning is faulty. Dragon Child 20:25, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

Well this is actually both. Large size races are expressly forbidden in the design standards of 4e, and its used "only for certain campaigns" (bad idea...all creations should appeal to as many gamers as possible, otherwise its going to be a passing fad). And I have a feeling you do not understand the 4e usage of the term "unbalanced". In 4e "unbalanced" means when compared to other articles of the same type (monsters, races, items, etc.) they must be on equal footing with each other (so no race should be inherently weaker or stronger then any other). If they are not on equal footing they are called "unbalanced" (this usage of the term is used so often by the designers it is sickening) if it was just bad mechanics it would be called "broken". So yes giving a race Large size, when no other race has the same trait (that is occupying more then one square) it is "unbalanced", and it requires DMs to make corrections in other rules as they go along (or as they say in 4e "requires internal balancing") these are polite terms that aptly describe the situations. I didn't invent the usage, this has been in effect since 4e first was released. I'm sorry if you missed it, and are confused by the use, but it is proper. If something requires "accommodation" in 4e it is considered "unbalanced" (there is no difference at all). But as I said I have no care either way, but if this is going to use a trait that goes directly against design standards, then it will need the "Design Disclaimer". Frankly this has become a pointless discussion, I have no need to try and explain every thought...nor will I. If you want read the designer's blogs and the design/development logs and maybe it will be clearer. It is now up to the author to decide what he wants to do, either way this article needs to be completed, so we can all move on. Thank you for the spirited discussion, but I fear we have reached an impass, it now lies with the author to make some final decisions. -- Sepsis 06:30, 27 May 2009 (MDT)

BTW, here is what the template looks like...as you can see it says nothing about being good only in certain campaigns, just that the standard rules may not work with parts of the article.

Design Disclaimer

This was created outside of the 4e design standards. It may require further balancing in order to function properly in your game.{{{2}}}

All creations should appeal to as many people as possible?! What?! What?! No! All creations should be usable and balanced in the game they're set in. If I want to include hobgoblins as a playable race in my game, and other people think they should be evil creations only, I shouldn't have to put some disclaimer on my page saying it's "potentially unbalanced". Let's use the words to mean what they actually MEAN, ok? Something that's unbalanced is not balanced compared to other things of its level. Something that's broken is BROKEN - it doesn't work, or grinds the game to a screeching halt. It is not unbalanced - it does not make the race too strong or too weak by itself. You keep stating this as if it was fact, and the only proof you offer is "No other race does this, and the 4e designers haven't done it yet.". You say that it requires correction in the rules - what rules? Note that "The campaign style happens to accommodate large characters" is not a correction in the rules. Give an example of houserules a 4e DM would have to make. If you want to make claims and not be called on them, don't make them. If you don't want to have to explain your reasoning, don't share your thoughts. If you want to keep citing these blogs - link them. In other words, I'm calling a "CITE?" to you. You keep saying it's unbalanced. Prove it. Dragon Child 15:27, 27 May 2009 (MDT)

This is how it works. You make an argument, you back it up. You don't back it up, nobody listens to you. I could very well say that being Large is totally balanced, because I said so, and that's just as valid as your argument. I'm not even saying it's balanced - I haven't actually come down either way. A discussion involves actually DISCUSSING, and if you don't want people to call you on what you say, don't post to discussion threads. Dragon Child 16:51, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

There is no need to look through thousands of blog entries, you just use the precedence set by every other single rsce they have released. Notice there are no Large PC Races even Large monsters given PC stats (ie. the Minotaur) are resized to Medium. Gee wonder if everyone at WotC missed something...or maybe they did say what I said they did, and have made they conscious decision not to include them because PC rules and powers are not designed to use a Large size (Monsters and PC Races are not written in an exchanable format like 3e anymore). If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material. I gain nor lose by anyone listening to me. I try to guide people in creating articles that are fun for everyone to use and that is all. I could care less what an author does with their creation, but everything posted reflects on the entire community and yes I hate to be made to look stupid because someone else dosen't understand a basic 4e design element. So far you have put forth no proof that you are right in any way. Nothing is backed up at all. Hit the blogs and post the question, they will answer in very short order. Find out...don't sit in your own world and think you figured out something already determined. --Sepsis 09:32, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

For swearing and being rude above both Dragon Child and Sepsis acquire a warning each, as listed above. It's not too serious though; three warnings result in a one week ban however hopefully that will not be the case. See also Warning Policy. --Green Dragon 20:33, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Can I add something? If you look at the Eldritch Giant (4e Race), note that things also cost more. If a real good D&D 4e expert says that equipment should cost more, then they can change it. I haven't applied this to other equipment, but I should (you know, a Medium grappling hook probably won't work that great for a Large creature. Maybe there are other things that could happen with large creatures. They can't move around corners as fast as a medium creature. They need to squeeze to get through 1 square passages. Hopefully this helped. --Axl 21:31, 29 January 2011 (MST)

Crush Underfoot is incredibly powerful, a 3d10 attack at level 1. That is more powerful than the level 13 brute Hill Giant in the MM (which has a 1d10+5 attack and a 2d6+5 attack). I'd suggest a 1d10/2d10/3d10 progression for 1st/11th/21st levels. Pdboddy 13:40, 25 May 2009 (MDT)

???...So a miss can cause more damage then a hit? I don't think the to-hit bonus should scale (they will have high strengths already, which will increase as they level), and if it must then +3 at Paragon and +4 at Epic. But with the strength scores being what they will it is overkill. Overall this is still a kinda dull racial power, what if the target and all creatures within a Close Burst 1 (except for the PC) were knocked Prone? This might make it more intresting and at least a little usable by Ranged classes. As for the "Large" size; nothing done at this level will allow that trait to be balanced, the rest of the rule set for PCs is not designed to incorporate it...it will bring only headaches to DMs not properly prepared to deal with it. -- Sepsis 06:59, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

Sorry, I fail to see what your problem with the Large Size is, it doesn't really effect anything par the damage of weapons and the close burst. Also not all racial powers are meant to be useful for every single class, your point on the +2 bonus doesn't really stand either, the Dragonborn gets Strength +2 VS. Reflex, yet the three classes given as examples and favored classes of the dragonborn will mean they have a high strength bonus.I meant to drop the miss bit.

Its not "my" problem with Large size, its the designers. They feel it is unbalancing therefore they have said no PC races will be Large. That given, it means nothing that is published will ever account for a Large sized PC, requiring DM modification to include. Now as I said the author can leave it, but it is unbalanced, no way around it. Therefore if it stays this article just needs to add the "Design Disclaimer" template to it and that is all. As for the power, well the Dragonborn power is an AoE that effects all creatures (friend and foe), so the tactical issue that comes in play is the fact your going to most likely hit what you breath at, even if its an ally. An attack directed at a single foe dosen't have this issue, and should not be as accurate (or scale slower). Of course if it had a wider effect (such as what I suggested) leaving the high to-hit would be fine. Lastly official racial powers are designed to be useful for all classes. Racial powers should not "pigeon-hole" a Player into a specific role. Really look at all the official racial powers and think about how a melee or ranged character would use it. If you find one that is truely limited to one type please show me, so far they all are equally useable by both types of classes. Now HB racial powers may do this because sometimes a race is just too narrow to be much more then one type or the other, and while WotC would just not create the race, one of your Players may want to play it...so it gets made. Nothing wrong there, just in the spirit it is nice to see racial powers that everyone can enjoy. -- Sepsis 08:08, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

Sorry if I came of a bit snarky, it was not meant to be an attack, I didn't realise they had said this about large races however. and i do see what you mean by racial powersShadowyFigure 09:27, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

Thank you all, I read through all the comments, and am working on some ideas to improve this race. Sepsis, I still think it's possible to make homebrew rules for Large, so I will not change that... not that I don't see your point. I realize it's against standards, but as a DM, I'll make my own homebrew rules and it should be fine for the purposes of my adventures. I'm working on a couple different ways to make Crush Underfoot less powerful... I should have whipped something up by this time next week! Thanks for your input -- Absconder

The WOTC boards of places of scum and stupidity. If an actual argument can be made, it can be posted here. Dragon Child 16:54, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

Wow that answers a lot. "I'm smarter then the designers." --Sepsis 09:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

OK that was just plain rude on my part. I have got to apologize. This is why I hate internet "arguments". I let myself get too angry with you. I should just take a deep breath. I'm willing to disagree, but I shouldn't drop down to the level of insults and such. We don't have to like each other, but we also don't have to resort to mudslinging. Again I am sorry for just being insulting that is beneath me, and I hate to think I would be lumped in that category. -- Sepsis 10:05, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

I didn't say a SINGLE THING about the designers. You are either not reading what I said, or are outright lying to make me look bad. In any case, please stop it. I said that the WOTC BOARDS are a place where doing basic math gets you shouted down as a "roll-player". This is a place where, when I suggested that Frank and K material be used for 3e games, I had someone openly and graphically fetishize about my death, and have a moderator be totally OK with it, because I was a "dirty munchkin". So yeah. That place sucks. Dragon Child 11:22, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

The question of reach. How much reach do you have naturally? 2 squares? Do having a reach weapon extend that to 4 squares? If you choose to give a large size creature a larger reach, you give them absolutely unprecedented control of the battlefield right from level 1.

Flanking. A medium creature has 9 ways of standing adjacent to another medium creature to flank. A large creature has 12 ways of standing adjacent to a medium creature to flank.

Being flanked. A medium creature can be flanked from 9 positions by another medium creature. A large creature can be flanked from 12 positions by a medium creature.

Mobility. Large creature can't fit through spaces in combat that medium creatures can. (Example: Two medium opponents with 3 squares between them that you need to get past? Well a medium creature can get through there without provoking opportunity attacks. A large creature cannot.)

Close attacks are much more versatile and powerful for a large creature than for a medium creature. Bursts: A medium creature attacks with a Close Burst 1 attack and hits 9 squares, up to 9 targets. A large creature attacks with a Close Burst 1 attack and hits 12 squares, up to 9 targets. Close burst 2 results in 24 squares versus 35 squares. Close burst 3 results in 48 squares versus 63 squares. Blasts: A medium creature has 16 ways to orient a Close Blast 3. A large creature has 25 ways to orient a Close Blast 3.

Large size does have both bonuses and penalties, the mistake should not be made that they balance each other out. Many of these bonuses and penalties apply to melee characters but not ranged characters or ranged characters but not melee character. Furthermore, another 4E PC race design philosophy that Large size breaks is that races are supposed to provide bonuses and not penalties, tell you what you can do and not what you can't. Racial penalties have no place in 4E.

Weapon damage (PHB pg.220). The Oversized racial trait is almost universally considered to be overpowered because of its incredibly significant boost to damage. That's why only Monster races get it and PC races don't. It was even specifically removed from the official PC version Minotaur for this very reason. A Large race effectively gets this exact same bonus to damage.

For any not wanting to view the forums. -- Sepsis 09:59, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

There's no reason to believe reach would work differently then it would in 3.5, which means a reach weapon is simply "+1 reach". The flanked/being flanked seems to balance out, so hey, that's OK. Mobility is a weakness, yep. That doesn't mean it's unplayable. You, once again, give deliberately misleading yet "accurate" numbers for the close attacks despite me proving them upthread. If a race can't work for ranged characters or is melee only, that's perfectly alright - the 4e races are incredibly pigeon-holed, "melee brute" is no more restrictive then many of the races already are (see: dwarf: cleric, fighter, maaaaybe wizard and paladin). Many of the races already tell you what you "can't do" - you can't, for example, make an effective halfling fighter, or an effective dragonborn wizard. Dragon Child 11:18, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

Wow, your wrong about races and the classes they can or can't be, also how are the number he gives "misleading" they are the correct number I double checked them myself, the points about weapon damage, and races are not meant to have penalties towards certain forms of combat. Just bonuses to a specific type, that are balanced along side the other races ShadowyFigure 12:10, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

How am I wrong? Please explain. The numbers are misleading because you're not subtracting the squares that the creature themselves take up. Generally, you aren't actually hitting anything occupying those squares. That only occurs in the absolute rarest of cases, and should not be counted. Right now, it doesn't appear to have any penalties - indeed, Large size just gives such large bonuses to melee you'd be stupid to play anything but. I fail to see how this is different with, say, Gnomes and the Wizard class. Dragon Child 12:17, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

This is how you where wrong about the races and classes, you can make a descent (Insert Class Here) with Race X, nearlly everytime, with small creatures being the only ones who may possibly not do as good (though a Halfling Tempest fighter does work). Open the players handbook, choose any race, I bet I could make a viable character of nearlly every class. Now onto close bursts. Using a close burst 1 power a medium creature can target a maximum of 8 creatures. A Large creature can target a maximum of 12. A Close Burst 2 damage a maximum of 24 creatures for a medium sized character and 32 for a large. How is that balanced? OH an just incase you need it ehre a illustration. ShadowyFigure 01:18, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

<center>

A halfling will never be a "decent" wizard, not if you compare it to a gnome wizard. The gnome wizard will utterly dominate him all the time. We have different definitions of "viable", here. At the very least, if you're not getting a bonus from ability scores to something useful, I'm not counting it as viable - monster defenses scale so fast that you practically need that +1 to hit, or at the very least a boost to your other states. Even then, that doesn't matter. If a race is only good for class X, so long as it's balanced with class X, does that honestly matter?

Now, thanks for your illustration. Let's see what *I* said, earlier up page

QUOTE ME: A Large creature's close burst only takes up 36 squares, but when you remove the squares the creature takes up, it's 32.

QUOTE SEPSIS: Close burst 2 results in 24 squares versus 35 squares.

So no. My math is right, and your "let me draw you an illustration" agrees with what I already said. Yes, I agree that it is bigger, but I'm not entirely convinced that a bigger burst radius is going to make the race overpowered. Dragon Child 11:24, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Indeed it does, I didn't state i t was to agree with sepsis that was jsut me checking it out. Course I look like an idiot now. I still think that it will over power the race however. Also you can make a descent halfling wizard. +2 Dex, +2 Cha right? So thats a wand based wizard or one that uses illusions. Just because it wont have a 20 in Intelligence at 1st level does not make it any less viable then the Gnome Wizard. But this of course is an entirley different conversation for us to have else where ;) ShadowyFigure 11:51, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Ok... I'm actually going to make a decent balance argument here. Looking at the benefits of large size not including the bonus to damage I want to make that clear, not including the bonus to damage, I think things balance out. You've got reach, which is awesome, but you'll need it in any sort of tight corridor situation as if you're on the front lines in a small hall, you're in big trouble (more enemies can get to you, and allies with reach can't attack past you). You've got bigger bursts, yup - though enemies aiming spells at you have more areas where to aim them at, and it's easier to aim them to hit you. Your bigger squares cause you to get tangled in difficult terrain and opportunity attacks more easily. And in any sort of tight space, you're at a disadvantage or even a liability to your party. Overall, I think the whole "You have 4 squares of area, and +1 reach" part of large is an interesting deal - in some cases it would be good, and in some cases it will be bad. That part, IMO, is the part that's going to be campaign dependent (it's only usable in some campaigns. if the author has a campaign that it is usable in, then we shouldn't change it otherwise). The real problem is the bonus damage. This is where the race can easily become overpowered, and THIS is the real problem with Large size. I don't have a problem if the race is only good for meleers, or only good for people who use strength. The problem is if it becomes too good for them. Even though +2 str is pretty flavorful, it may want to be removed. Just giving the race +2 con, and only +2 con may be appropriate. They're then comparable to warforged stat-wise for a strength-using class, and comparible to dragonborn or half-elves for a charisma one. There are, as far as I know, no classes that get +con to damage except for fighters with axes and maces on SOME of their powers. Dragon Child 13:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Though I am no expert in 4e balance and didn't bother to read the whole wall of text above this, one thing to consider is the actual utility of the extra close burst squares. So you have 8 extra squares for a close burst 2. You will still need to actually have enemies in that burst. Being large and, thus, less maneuverable, it may be harder to get in a position where you can even use those extra squares to your advantage. On the other side of the argument, you also gain an increase in the overall size of the burst so you can reach creatures that are farther away from each other than a medium creature could. Reach coupled with close burst 2 allows a fighter (are there even any fighter close burst 2 attacks?) to pin down enemies 2 squares away. Now that is a powerful ability for a defender and something well worth considering. Playtesting is needed to figure this out. I think it is just too difficult to crunch conceptually. --Aarnott 10:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Another thought occurs. A large creature has a bigger burst; but can a large creature be caught within another burst twice? Or maybe four times? --TK-Squared 10:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

No it cannot, it still only counts as a single target.

Fighters, as far as I know, have very few bursts larger then 1. There's one or two, but not many. Even then, the bursts larger then 1 tend to move the creatures either closer to or further from the fighter. Overall, it really won't help the fighter lock down more foes for long, as he still can't make opportunity attacks except in melee, and he can't mark someone unless he attacks them. Dragon Child 11:38, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Why are you bringing up Fighters? It does matter what class the race could be optimal in, it matters what class it could be in and how its abilities could be overpowered with said classes. A Giant Wizard for example can take advantage of the close bursts. ShadowyFigure 11:56, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

I brought up fighters because Aarnott did. A giant wizard could take advantage of close bursts, yes, but with absolutely no stat benefit to them, I'd be the race would still end up totally underpowered. Sure, you hit more guys sometimes... but you are also easier to hit with bursts yourself, harder to manuever, take up more space, get in your allies way, are easier to gang up on, and so on. If you're not a melee-using class, being Large size is just not worth it. Dragon Child 12:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I give up. Dragon Child wins I'm out of the race when it comes to PC viability. You do not need a same attack stat as one of your races to hbe effecetive in higher levels. That is a fact. But you know better right? And I missed Aarnott's post, it doesn't matter how many close burst powers the fighter has it still has them. These are all things we have to consider when it comes to the balance of races. ShadowyFigure 12:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Ok, fine, you won't end up "non-viable", but you won't end up "overpowered", so as long as you don't end up overpowered, it doesn't matter. I just don't think that the Giant will be anywhere NEAR as good as a Gnome wizard. No matter where you draw the viability line, as long as Gnome Wizard is an option, and Giant Wizard isn't as good, then we don't have to worry about it being overpowered. Dragon Child 12:31, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Will you stop waving around that Gnome Wizard like a todler play with his genitals!, They are not the be all and end all of all wizards, I draw the viability line at you can play this race with this class. Because it has some feature that can help out. That feature is the large size and would work great with a wizard with mostly close burst spells. ShadowyFigure 12:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

The gnome wizard, in my opinion, is the strongest race for wizard. This then is what we have to compare against - if a new race is stronger then the strongest, we have to decide if that's ok. If the new race isn't stronger then the strongest, then it is OK. Is there a race better at being wizards then the gnome? If so, sure, we'll compare them instead. If not, it's a totally fine balance point. And you need balance points - you can't just wave your hands and compare stuff in a vaccuum. Dragon Child 12:42, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

How is the gnome wizard, the best viable wizard? Is it the useless per encounter only, the abbility to go invisible after you have been hit once an encounter the +2 Intelligence & +2 Charisma?? If you said. Gnomes are the best Illusion Wizards. I'd have reason to agree. But I don't see anything that amkes them "the best". ShadowyFigure 13:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

For some reason, I thought they had +2 Int, and +2 Wis. Mah bad. In any case, we should be looking at Eladrin, Tieflings, and Gnomes as a whole I guess. And +1 hit, +1 damage is still a hefty bonus, even when put against larger close bursts (how many do wizards actually have?). Dragon Child 12:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Not to many from a brief glance, making the giant wizard almost moot. I'm trying to think what class I thought had loads of close burst spells... may have been the bard... the swordmage... what about the warlord do they have many? (or the ranger for two weapon builds). And dont call yourself a dipshit simple mistake, confusing but simple. ShadowyFigure 13:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

I should have looked that up. It was lazy and stupid of me. The ranger's got quite a few burst spells, yes. For pretty much every power that's not at-will or utility, it has some sort of Burst 1 option. Sticking to core 4e, our biggest contenders for lack of balance of the Giant are a Fighter with a two-handed weapon and lots of damage (gets the most out of the bonus weapon size) focusing on killing stuff, and a Ranger with a lot of the burst powers. For Fighter, we need to compare to Dragonborn and Dwarf, and possibly Warforged if you allow it. For Ranger, Elf and Dragonborn, and again maybe Warforged. However, let me re-make my suggestion of not providing the +2 str for the giant, only +2 con and perhaps just +2 con. Also, this is not getting into the problems that Crush Underfoot has. Right now, I'm just worrying about what Large size means, and how to balance it. The power can come later - that's the easy part! Dragon Child 13:33, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

This may not be a "fix" to the problem. but I feel like I should make some sort of suggestion for the Large size for if and when you use it in your campaign. You could keep close bursts and attacks like that the same size for a Medium character, except that you would pick one origin square to make the attack from that your character occupies. Now, this might make it so you cannot do what the power really wanted you to do, but in the case of spells and such, just because you're larger doesn't mean your attack is going to be bigger than the attack made by a Medium character. I'm not really sure how else you could fix this, other than maybe using the same number of squares in a Burst 1, except you get to pick which ones they hit, and then you follow the rule I stated for the other Bursts. Might not help you too much, but it's just my suggestion. If anyone is going to say I'm wrong about this, then please do so in a constructive manner and don't begin an argument User:Nocturne 10:03, 12 October 2009 (MDT)

That is an idea, having the same number of squares. It does make it more balanced. --Axl 21:40, 29 January 2011 (MST)

Hey, how come no one mentioned most giants have ability penalty on INT or CHA, as to make it more balanced?(Tis kind of leaves out of the question a giant/WIZ OR SCR). Still, their Higher AC, due to the fact of em being, well, large, seems overlooked. And if it is true they make for excellent barbarians as boss enemies, they have somewhat of a level adjustment for PCs, shouldn´t they? It is not that unballanced, though. Check the Centaur on the monster manual, that seems way more unballanced and WOTC said it´s cool. I mean, I´d make a Giant, but probably not in a lvl 1 campaign. I know, all this might sound a little 3.5y, but hey, if ain´t broken, it might still work. Ohh, adjust the skills. This guy is weak for a large Guy. A giant with only +2 STR, not believable. And the last idea of the Axl guy might work. And making him gain racial benefits on growing levels (since the class is intended for a PC, such as a more damaging ability to crush little guys) might be too much. Good luck.

You can't get past +2 to an ability score. Sorry. If that were the case, Hill giants would be too powerful, strength-wise. --Axl 14:51, 9 April 2011 (MDT)

I was thinking of something similar to what Nocturne wrote. Though I thought of it a little differently. For a large creature allow the burst powers to reach all the squares that are shown in the images above, however limit the number of squares it can affect to the number you could hit were you medium. Allow the caster to choose the squares they hit, but only on the outside ring. So a close burst 2 would have to affect those inner 12 squares, then they can pick the other 12. That does give them an advantage in control when avoiding hitting specific targets, but it also means they can hit less targets at the maximum range of the power (a medium creature would be able to hit 16 creatures two squares away with a close burst. So that may come out self balancing, though with larger bursts it does greatly change that outer ring.

If you want to allow some of the RP of playing a strong giant while not giving lots of extra strength, you could do something like double their strength value when they're trying to smash/lift objects and work out carry loads (haven't thought about the actual numbers to increase, just the principle). --Lucifer's Heaven 15:19, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Removed "oversized" and instead changed how the giant interacts with regular weapons, which is the philosophy used by Small creatures. Having different sized weapons is a throwback to 3.5e. Instead they can wield two-handed weapons as versatile one-handed weapons, and one-handed weapons as off-hand weapons. So instead of a ranger hill giant wielding an oversized longsword in each hand, they would wield a greatsword in each hand. A fighter hill giant with the same greatsword could still wield it as a two-handed weapon, but gain +1 bonus damage for versatility.

They are tall large creatures, so have a reach of 2, so made this explicit. Yes, a hill giant with a halberd has a reach of 3.

Changed "crush underfoot" to "hurl rock", since this is what hill giants have done since 1e.

Scrapped "giant weapon training". Weapon training, a la elves and dwarves, represents a particular kind of culture, tradition and education. Hill giants do not have a culture, tradition and education. They bash things with rocks.

Keeping the design disclaimer. Large creatures will never be balanced in terms of 4e player race design, but, you know, sometimes you just want to play a freaking large brute. Marasmusine (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2012 (MDT)

Does anyone mind if I radically edit this to fit my Elite Characters (4e Variant Rule)? The reason being that it's easier to control the awkward and unbalancing combination of large size and class choice with that system. I can also add some large-sized weapons as an explicit class feature.Marasmusine (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2013 (MDT)